Is HiRes 32 Bit Audio better than 16 Bit Audio in DACs?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 16 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 15

  • @oliv9768
    @oliv9768 7 днів тому

    I know of a Japanese CEO who, frankly, expressed to a British CEO, the breath of what you’ve laid out, here. 🍺

  • @topkho
    @topkho 19 днів тому +5

    in my own testing, 16bit 44.1K sounds best

  • @michaelrovner4165
    @michaelrovner4165 19 днів тому +2

    Yes 32 bits with a DAW or digital eq sounds better..Period

  • @realhi-fihelplarry8047
    @realhi-fihelplarry8047 17 днів тому +1

    Higher bit with higher sample rate yes at first can seem like it is a warmer/heavier sound with a lot better control of the volume. (a lot more bass)
    But after you hear it for an extended period of time, you will notice that the sound is now congested and that the variety is now lost in the music, because now everything sounds blown up and bloated with a lower quality of especially the instruments themselves. So yes this is probably what noise sounds like.
    Also this higher bit mode and sample rate seriously slows down the music so it loses itś freedom. And yes in a way that helps you understand the sound more since 16bit 44khz is a lot more raw i nsound. But that is then something that hugely affects the quality of sound, so now you have 2 opposite choices in HiFi: either understanding sound a bit more or enjoying the quality of the music.
    I choose to go for quality of sound, since with ONLY understanding more information that is a very empty experience by itself.

  • @fx-studio
    @fx-studio 19 днів тому +2

    Depending on genetic background many people don't have the ability to process high frequency sound detail in the brain. Its like 30% of people don't have an inner dialogue and another % can't visualise, or if they do its in black/ white not colour. To people who can't process those high frequency sounds a CD sounds the same as Hires they simply can't discern any difference.

    • @007EnglishAcademy
      @007EnglishAcademy 19 днів тому +3

      In which case they would be wasting their cash buying your products?

    • @sw1xaudiodesign
      @sw1xaudiodesign  19 днів тому

      one certainly can hear the difference but not for the better! the point made here is not "whether or not" one can hear a difference but whether higher HiRes sounds better than Red Book

    • @052RC
      @052RC 19 днів тому +1

      I've heard this argument many times but it never made sense to me. Its like saying there's no reason to buy anything better than a regular DVD because its capable of reproducing all the colors the eye can see. In reality, we all know the reason you want something better than a dvd is to get more resolution, or finer detail, within the colors we can see. Its the same thing with audio equipment. So what if your hearing starts to roll off when you get a little older? That doesn't mean you can't hear differences in resolution in the frequencies that you can still hear. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
      I will say that a lot of this has to do with the industry itself. There's an absolute refusal in the audio industry to do any testing that would qualify as real science.
      "To people who can't process those high frequency sounds a CD sounds the same as Hires they simply can't discern any difference."
      I'm not trying to single you out in any way, but the above quote is a pretty good example of what I mean. If I were to ask you where you got that information, and was it obtained using real science, you wouldn't be able to give me an answer. Again, just to be clear, I believe that when you make that statement, you're being 100% sincere. I know you're not trying to deceive anyone. Its just that so many people hear statements like this, and they start to repeat them. Eventually, it turns into "common knowledge". The problem is, if we looked into the origins on that school of thought, we wouldn't be able to find anything that's based in real science. And that's the real problem. I'm no exception. I've fallen for many things over the years, that I was completely wrong on.
      Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is, the time is long overdue for the audio industry to take some of these controversial topics, do some real science, and update the books, for lack of a better term. Its for their own good. If you look at all of the branches in digital consumer electronics, audio took a different approach than al the others. We went from CD's to MP3's and iPods. They went for features, not quality, and it ruined the entire industry. Imagine if Sony put out a Playstation 6, and it was lower spec than a PS5, and the marketing was "We put a bigger hard drive in it so it can hold more games.". That's exactly what the audio industry did.

    • @052RC
      @052RC 19 днів тому

      @sw1xaudiodesign That's a point that can't be made. Its subjective. The only real point that can be made is, "Is there a difference? Yes or No? That's objective. The point you're trying to make is subjective. 2 people can listen to the exact same thing, and one loves what they hear and the other hates it. Neither is wrong. What makes the comparison especially hard is, Redbook players don't all sound the same. Just the opposite. My Wadia CD player sounds so different than my Arcam, they could be different formats altogether.
      That said, I can think of one legitimate, objective reason 32 bit would be superior. Bit stripping. When you change volume in the analog domain, you alter the signal strength in voltage. Digital volume and gain (digital gain is also referred to as trim), is adjusted by changing the bit rate. For example, I'll use MP3 because its the easiest to visualize. There's always a bit rate associated with it. The highest quality MP3 you can get is 320kbps. When you play that MP3, and you have a digital volume control or trim, the only time you get the full 320 kbps is when your digital volume is set to max and/or gain/trim is set to 0. As you lower either, the 320 keeps dropping the more you lower the adjustment. That's just how digital works. The best way to deal with bit stripping is to use the highest bitrate possible. Lets say you want to play some MP3's on a Redbook player. You can transcode MP3 to CD. Its lossy compression, so you can't turn a 320kbps into a 16/44 file. What you can do is add non musical information to the file and "trick" your Redbook player into thinking your MP3 is really a CD. The quality should be the same after you convert the music to CD. However, there's one benefit. When you make the file bigger during the transcode process, you'll get less loss due to bit stripping because its a finer adjustment. Most modern recordings are mostly done in the digital domain. I don't know if you're right or not about not being able to hear anything more than 24 bit, but we'll assume its true. So, if you can hear differences up to 24 bit, the potential is there for bit stripping to have an audible effect. If you work in 32 bit, you'll have to reduce the bitrate to 24 before you can hear any loss. In a digital recording environment, its possible, at least in theory, that going with 32 bit can make an audible difference.
      Just to be honest, I haven't made any type of comparisons with regards to 32 and 24 bit. I can say the potential is definitely there for an audible difference, but I've never done any listening to try and confirm what I can and can't hear. My best guess is if there is a difference, it would be very small.

    • @fx-studio
      @fx-studio 18 днів тому

      ​@@052RC For me the difference is massive and I can tell within a few seconds which is which with almost total accuracy. But there are people who can't tell the difference between opamps for example, to them a 1970's NE5532 sounds the same as an OPA828 - even when they have totally different specifications.
      Most audiophiles demos use old non-hi res music for example - often it was originally recorded and mixed on equipment that contained between x30 to x50 1970s opamps and very low spec ADC-DACs from decades a go. So there is no getting around the fact that the music can not be a good test example. Yet there they are playing it like its the greatest music ever recorded! Clearly they can't hear the difference.
      There are many parts of the brain involved in processing sound - Brainstem Nuclei (like the cochlear nucleus and superior olive) where processing starts. Inferior Colliculus (Midbrain): This is a major relay center that integrates auditory information. Medial Geniculate Nucleus (MGN) of the Thalamus: This is a key relay point in the thalamus, which acts as a "gateway" to the cortex.
      Auditory Cortex (Temporal Lobe): This is the primary processing area for sound. Here, the brain analyzes features like pitch, loudness, and location.
      The ability of having good High Frequency sound analysis likely comes from hunter genes where it would have been an essential survival requirement. Its known that Neanderthals had larger visual and auditory complexes so it may depend on how much Neanderthal hunter DNA someone has. If someone's genes were more from a farming background it stands to reason that they wouldn't need to have developed more evolved auditory and visual complexes.

  • @peterw2714
    @peterw2714 19 днів тому +1

    It’s about sample rate, not bit depth. 😅

    • @zaxmaxlax
      @zaxmaxlax 15 днів тому

      bitstream audio is literally 1 bit at 2.8 megahertz 😂 I subbed to this channel just to see the snake oil salesman and the comments. Theres no way this guys doesnt not know frequency is more important, he even claims 32bits is worse 😂 by his own testing.